second ammendment being " out dated "

we all hear the anti-gunners say the 2nd ammendment is out dated, our fore-fathers couldnt fore see the weapons of today. my argument is this! there was a reason for the 2nd ammendment being vague, the antis are right, the fore fathers couldnt for see the weapons of our armed forces today. the true reason for the 2nd ammendment is to protect ourselves from tyranny and oppresion. i believe the ammendment was meant for the citizens of this country to have the same type of fire power as the armed forces. i feel this is the true reason the government wants to destroy the second ammendment. its not to stop gun violence but to control the poeple with out any repercussion. how do you look at this subject. im trying to refine my arguement.

thanks for your time.

If you enjoyed reading about "second ammendment being " out dated "" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Tommygunn

January 13, 2013, 01:08 PM

The second amendment for all intents and purposes is as old as the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments. If the second should be eliminated due to being outdated, so should the rest.
Let the antis who use that argument stew on that for awhile.

Drail

January 13, 2013, 01:14 PM

Well, the Fourth Amm. has been "outdated" for some time in my experience. Things such as "officer safety" and the airport stupidity we have to put up with now says to me that our elected officials just don't seem to be able to "govern" us all with that annoying Bill of Rights so they just ignore it and claim it's "outdated".:barf:

cluck

January 13, 2013, 01:24 PM

I've also heard Antis say that SCOTUS ruled in 2008 that the government DOES have the right to "regulate" firearms ("...well regulated militia..."), however, whether it is out dated, obsolete, or a governmental body rules/legislates/enforces a new amendment, it doesn't matter.
The very idea of the second amendment is it's power! Not the paper it's written on.

Thought experiment:
If by some fluke Feinstein got ALL of her disarmament dreams, :eek:
How is the DOJ going to realistically enforce this new take on the US? WHO is going to go out and collect these newly illegal firearms?
Call in the DOD? Now you're REALLY riding roughshod on the Constitution!
Local law enforcement? You mean those folks who are already understaffed, under budgeted, and in some cases out gunned? Those folks who LIVE in the local community and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution?
I don't think so.

Even if they got their minimum demands, Hi-cap mag and sporting rifle ban, individual states will pass their own laws that allow these things and then it becomes a states rights battle. (WY) The DOJ is already looking at a states rights fight with WA and CO. How do you enforce laws without the help of local law enforcement?

Solo

January 13, 2013, 01:58 PM

First amendment's rather outdated as well. It's not like people need freedom of speech, religion, expression, and etc. Just look at China, an authoritarian dictatorship with a robust economy better than our own. (Actually, part of the reason the economy is so strong is because they lack freedom of speech.)

And it's not like the Founders could have foreseen the internet and modern mass media, so it's not like abridging them would affect the intent of the First Amendment, right?

Hawaiian

January 13, 2013, 02:30 PM

They should not be igoring the constitution simply because they no longer agree with it. There is a method to ammend the constitution. But they know it would not pass, so they chose to ignore it. I don't agree with some taxes, can I simply ignore them? Sure I can, and end up in jail.

wow6599

January 13, 2013, 02:39 PM

I'll tell ya what's outdated, the anti's trying to destroy the 2nd amendment. Well out of date....

KTXdm9

January 13, 2013, 02:41 PM

First amendment's rather outdated as well. It's not like people need freedom of speech, religion, expression, and etc. Just look at China, an authoritarian dictatorship with a robust economy better than our own. (Actually, part of the reason the economy is so strong is because they lack freedom of speech.)

And it's not like the Founders could have foreseen the internet and modern mass media, so it's not like abridging them would affect the intent of the First Amendment, right?
Exactly. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

RetiredUSNChief

January 13, 2013, 02:45 PM

Do we have a government?

If the answer to that is "yes", then the Second Amendment is not outdated.

The Second Amendment is there BECAUSE of government.

:cool:

sean326

January 13, 2013, 02:54 PM

I've also heard Antis say that SCOTUS ruled in 2008 that the government DOES have the right to "regulate" firearms ("...well regulated militia..."), however, whether it is out dated, obsolete, or a governmental body rules/legislates/enforces a new amendment, it doesn't matter.
The very idea of the second amendment is it's power! Not the paper it's written on.

Thought experiment:
If by some fluke Feinstein got ALL of her disarmament dreams, :eek:
How is the DOJ going to realistically enforce this new take on the US? WHO is going to go out and collect these newly illegal firearms?
Call in the DOD? Now you're REALLY riding roughshod on the Constitution!
Local law enforcement? You mean those folks who are already understaffed, under budgeted, and in some cases out gunned? Those folks who LIVE in the local community and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution?
I don't think so.

Even if they got their minimum demands, Hi-cap mag and sporting rifle ban, individual states will pass their own laws that allow these things and then it becomes a states rights battle. (WY) The DOJ is already looking at a states rights fight with WA and CO. How do you enforce laws without the help of local law enforcement?
The way i read feinstein's bill she would prohibit the transfer. so it would be your estate turning in your guns. Also by doing that she would completely de-value them, what's an item worth if you cannot buy, sell or trade that item ever.

I honestly think that nothing material will come of this... maybe a background check on all non-family transfers or something but i'll bet no sweeping rifle ban or mag ban.... i hope.

Now let me shift to conspiracy mode (thats easy for me)
Even if we had the worst case scenario and a the government created a ban on black rifles, like Germany, China, Russia etc... cant happen here?... Remember we (the USA) just 60 years ago rounded up millions of people because they had slanted eyes. We confiscated their homes, businesses and any personal possessions they couldn't fit in 1 suitcase and put them in concentration camps for years.

Anyway most of us honest law abiding citizens would comply with the law and turn them in. Some more militant of us would burry them or lock them in man caves. But you couldn't shoot them, trade them or even talk about them. They (the storm troopers) may pick a couple homes here and there to make examples out of but there would not be mass door to door confiscation or civil war, it would just quietly become 3rd page news and only the criminals would have them.

MudPuppy

January 13, 2013, 03:04 PM

Fine, it's outdated. Then update the constitution, don't ignore it.

That's its purpose, that is why it has survived. That's why it's so important.

IF we truly are a different world and guns are no longer to be allowed to the people, then pass an amendment. But don't you dare, as an American, get behind an unconstitutional law or a $%@ executive order because of the way the wind is blowing today. Because tomorrow, the other side/bad guy/etc could just as easily be the one ramming through exec orders on freedom of press, assembly, or religion.

mfinley919

January 13, 2013, 03:20 PM

There are approximately 20,000 gun laws/regulations as of 2013 that infringe upon what is to be not infringed upon.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How is there not infringement when ownership is so heavily regulated that that ability to have ownership is removed? California and NY have the most highly regulated gun laws in the country, how can they not be classified as infringing?

natman

January 13, 2013, 04:33 PM

we all hear the anti-gunners say the 2nd ammendment is out dated, our fore-fathers couldnt fore see the weapons of today.

This was directly addressed in DC v Heller, page 8:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Now that that's been settled, the thread should end now.

Somehow I'm guessing it won't. :cool:

brickeyee

January 13, 2013, 04:36 PM

Maybe it is time to restrict the use of the first amendment to attack the second?:banghead::neener:

joeschmoe

January 13, 2013, 04:54 PM

The same document that establishes this government and gives it it's powers also restricts it. If the restrictions are "outdated" then so is the government it established.

With the authority comes restrictions. You do not get one without the other. Same document gives both.

jerinco

January 13, 2013, 09:36 PM

did most of you just read the title and go off on that? my arguement was on gun "control" not the ammendment being out dated.

Wolfman131

January 13, 2013, 09:38 PM

The second amendment for all intents and purposes is as old as the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments. If the second should be eliminated due to being outdated, so should the rest.
Let the antis who use that argument stew on that for awhile.
I think sir, that given the opportunity, they'd quite happily ditch the entire document.

rookorami

January 13, 2013, 09:39 PM

There may be those in power who do want the guns to control the populace. I think a very large portion of people who are anti-gun and just been drinking the kool-aid being passed out by the media and other are just plain scared. It all centers around ignorance IMHO.

RockyTop

January 13, 2013, 09:48 PM

I also hear the argument that "back then it took 10 seconds to reload" a gun. As if since guns have changed that this amendment is no longer valid.

But the fact remains that the writers of the amendment allowed citizens to own the most powerful weapon of that time, so no reason to believe they wouldn't also be in favor of us owning the current modern weapons that are available.

False arguments include: the amendment is outdated, the amendment is about hunting, the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate the current modern weapons.

Fact of the matter is that US citizens were given the right to own the most powerful firearms available and that right was not to be infringed upon.

jerinco

January 13, 2013, 10:06 PM

this is what i was trying to say.

mjkten

January 14, 2013, 05:38 PM

The Second Amendment is only now becoming the vital "Liberty Teeth" that it was intended to be. I am sure the Founders never expected that the Second Amendment would stand unchallenged as tyranny built. Or that the mere presence of the words in the Bill or Rights would stop government encroachment on our liberty. It's the guns in the hands of citizens that put meat on the bones of those words.

Pointshoot

January 14, 2013, 06:02 PM

I don't think this lady who speaks from experience thinks its 'outdated':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaa7TiK_Gk&feature=player_embedded

jerinco

January 14, 2013, 06:17 PM

i dont feel the 2nd amm is out dated!!!!! its an argument point. but i do like the video couldnt agree more.

natman

January 15, 2013, 02:52 AM

did most of you just read the title and go off on that? my arguement was on gun "control" not the ammendment being out dated.

second ammendment being " out dated "
we all hear the anti-gunners say the 2nd ammendment is out dated, our fore-fathers couldnt fore see the weapons of today.

If the topic you have in mind was something other than the notion of the 2nd being outdated, perhaps you shouldn't have used the phrase in your title AND your premise.

If your topic is something else, I have no idea what it is.

tulsamal

January 15, 2013, 01:23 PM

There is a method to ammend the constitution. But they know it would not pass, so they chose to ignore it.

That's what it comes down to. The Constitution was designed to be a living document. Parts have become outdated. Like counting blacks as three fifths of a person for the purpose of establishing voting population. Or the way we used to elect our Senators. Etc.

But when the population decides a part is "obsolete," they have to pass an new Constitutional amendment changing the prior part. If the anti's truly believe the 2nd Amendment is the problem, then they are welcome to try to nullify it. Legally and in accordance with the Constitution. Otherwise... it's the law of the land!

Gregg

xfyrfiter

January 15, 2013, 09:10 PM

If at any time in our history the second amendment is more relevant today than ever before. My limited knowledge of history can't ever think of a time when our rights were under a heavier attack.

ultratec1

January 16, 2013, 06:00 PM

I had this same debate with a co-worker today, he says that the founding fathers could have never fathomed the technology of todays firearms and it was not intended for the people to have "automatic" wepaons. To put his point into perspective I reversed the roles and asked him how many times has he used his cellphone, ipad, facebook, email, twitter etc. to express his viewpoint on this subject. He said that he has voiced his opinion on all of these "devices". I pointed out to him that our founding fathers could have never fathomed the technology of todays communication and it was not intended for people to use them to excercise their 1st ammendment right of freedom of speech. So if I was to turn in to my AR then he would need to use a pen and quill from here on out and not the internet, phone service or any digital item, only a pen and paper, Oh and not a fancy ball point pen either.

He looked at me like I had lost my mind. :D

RetiredUSNChief

January 16, 2013, 07:57 PM

It might also be interesting to see the look on his face when you explain to him that those same arms that the Founding Fathers talked about were (insert drum roll here) the same types of guns the military forces used (insert rim shot here).

So, using that same argument, it could equally be said that the Founding Fathers fully intended that the civilians would have the SAME personal weapons that the military forces would have.

But I like your analogy with respect to the First Amendment.

I've had similar discussions with other people about these things as well. In addition to the First Amendment, don't forget how out of date the others are, as well.

Get rid of the 3rd Amendment. Surely, with the way the military is set up today there is no need to have it in writing that the government cannot quarter the military on your property and in your house, right? Especially with budget concerns the way they are now. Can't see the military saying "Hey! We can save a lot of money if we don't have to house and feed the troops out of our own pocket anymore!"

Get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments. They don't do anything except hamper the law enforcement agencies in prosecuting criminals, right? Law enforcement would never conduct warrantless searches on people who are NOT criminals, right? Never force a confession from a suspect, right? Never imprison someone endlessly until they finally feel like getting around to actual prosecution, right?

The Constitution starts off with "We the people...", so why do we need the 13th Amendment? We'd NEVER mistreat anybody on the basis of race today, right?

And let's repeal the 19th Amendment right now! With the limited perspective of women due to their rightful role as barefoot, pregnant, sammich makers, why do they need to vote? None of those activities have anything at all to do with important things, like running the country or anything. Well, except maybe the sammich making thing so those who do run the country can eat.

:rolleyes:

The point of ANY of these arguments is to show that those Amendments are there for very important reasons. And the fact that people today HAVE those rights is because those who came before us suffered and fought tooth and nail for them. Take them away now, just because someone says "oh, that could NEVER happen now" or "they're out dated" means that we're re-establishing the legal conditions for all those problems which were addressed by them in the first place.

I don't know about you, but I have enough in life to worry about without having to deal with these things all over again like our forebears.

Akita1

January 16, 2013, 08:13 PM

First amendment's rather outdated as well. It's not like people need freedom of speech, religion, expression, and etc. Just look at China, an authoritarian dictatorship with a robust economy better than our own. (Actually, part of the reason the economy is so strong is because they lack freedom of speech.)

And it's not like the Founders could have foreseen the internet and modern mass media, so it's not like abridging them would affect the intent of the First Amendment, right?
Solo - do business in China regularly and can assure you the economic growth has very little to do with limiting free speech. Manipulation of currency and cheap labor are the two most significant factors. Perhaps limiting free speech in the context of covering slave labor is where your'e going with that comment?

Akita1

January 16, 2013, 08:15 PM

It might also be interesting to see the look on his face when you explain to him that those same arms that the Founding Fathers talked about were (insert drum roll here) the same types of guns the military forces used (insert rim shot here).

So, using that same argument, it could equally be said that the Founding Fathers fully intended that the civilians would have the SAME personal weapons that the military forces would have.

But I like your analogy with respect to the First Amendment.

I've had similar discussions with other people about these things as well. In addition to the First Amendment, don't forget how out of date the others are, as well.

Get rid of the 3rd Amendment. Surely, with the way the military is set up today there is no need to have it in writing that the government cannot quarter the military on your property and in your house, right? Especially with budget concerns the way they are now. Can't see the military saying "Hey! We can save a lot of money if we don't have to house and feed the troops out of our own pocket anymore!"

Get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments. They don't do anything except hamper the law enforcement agencies in prosecuting criminals, right? Law enforcement would never conduct warrantless searches on people who are NOT criminals, right? Never force a confession from a suspect, right? Never imprison someone endlessly until they finally feel like getting around to actual prosecution, right?

The Constitution starts off with "We the people...", so why do we need the 13th Amendment? We'd NEVER mistreat anybody on the basis of race today, right?

And let's repeal the 19th Amendment right now! With the limited perspective of women due to their rightful role as barefoot, pregnant, sammich makers, why do they need to vote? None of those activities have anything at all to do with important things, like running the country or anything. Well, except maybe the sammich making thing so those who do run the country can eat.

:rolleyes:

The point of ANY of these arguments is to show that those Amendments are there for very important reasons. And the fact that people today HAVE those rights is because those who came before us suffered and fought tooth and nail for them. Take them away now, just because someone says "oh, that could NEVER happen now" or "they're out dated" means that we're re-establishing the legal conditions for all those problems which were addressed by them in the first place.

I don't know about you, but I have enough in life to worry about without having to deal with these things all over again like our forebears.
Roger all of that Chief - the BOR does not carry a multiple choice option

Kiln

January 16, 2013, 08:28 PM

The cannons and grenades of that time period were privately owned. Don't try and tell me that the founding fathers wouldn't have wanted us to have dangerous weapons.

They were completely comfortable with the neighbor having a cannon parked outside his house but our modern day citizens can't cope with us having rifles in our own homes.

Open carry was the common method for carry of firearms and didn't make people panic. In those times a rifle or pistol was a common part of the wardrobe and wasn't a taboo item.

In fact citizens of the time period assumed that you were a dishonorable individual if you CONCEALED your firearm.

IndispensableDestiny

January 16, 2013, 09:40 PM

The first amendment is outdated. At the time it was written, the free press used machines quite unchanged from Gutenberg's. Free speech was what you did from a soap box or in a tavern.

If you enjoyed reading about "second ammendment being " out dated "" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!